Total bill for my hospital stay last year

[Hilltop Customs]

what I mean is: imagine credit being what you can afford.....be it in payments or an instant payoff, it is what you can afford to purchase at this moment. This is essentially what people want to know when they look up your credit rating. Leaving out something as imporatant as your massive medical debt just doesnt make sense.

I'm just running through this logically in my head, IDK anything about the subject really, so any opinion is as good as mine.

[grEnAlEins]

why shouldnt it be that way? divide the national cost of heathcare by the number of people in the country, that gives you the amt to pay per person.....its as simple as that if the goverment wouldnt try to take a cut.

say 1 in 100 people had to pay the 384k a year(would be that way if people didnt abuse the system they are in)....that is only $3840 a person. If the rate was 1/1000 had to pay 384k/year then it would drop to $384 a person for yearly heathcare.

Its called bulk discount....its hard to beat if its nation wide......call me a socialist if you want, I'm just looking for the best deal.

Yeah, except each of the other 99 or 999 has medical bills too. It is not going to save money overall. If everyone paid for everyone else, the same amount would get paid in the end. There is no free lunch. For most people it would actually be more expensive. Plus you fail to account for extra administrative costs associated with a government operation.

Nationalized healthcare would be beyond catastrophic. We would see a sharp decline in quality and expediency of care. The reason that our system is so good as far as quality is because it is financed appropriately. All that would happen with social medicine is we would receive two-tiered care. There would be cruddy care for all quality care for those who can afford it. Having a system of public care and a system of private care makes no sense whatsoever.

Also some food for thought for you:
A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.
~Gerald Ford -- Presidential address to a joint session of Congress (12 August 1974)

[SCpoloRicker]

Don't worry, national socialized healthcare is coming. YAY!!

[grEnAlEins]

Just for the surgeries themselves, the hospital room, nurses and medication. Not including specialists, surgeons, doctors, etc. for JUST the hospital stay itself from my accident.

$384,000 plus a bit.

That sucks man. I feel for you. I hope everything works out for you.

[grEnAlEins]

Don't worry, national socialized healthcare is coming. YAY!!

I don't think so. Not until after we hit a true recession and recover anyway. There is no way to fund it as of now.

[Elemental]

I don't think so. Not until after we hit a true recession and recover anyway. There is no way to fund it as of now.

That's not stopping them from trying to pass a $700billion bailout.

[Hilltop Customs]

Yeah, except each of the other 99 or 999 has medical bills too. It is not going to save money overall. If everyone paid for everyone else, the same amount would get paid in the end. There is no free lunch. For most people it would actually be more expensive. Plus you fail to account for extra administrative costs associated with a government operation.

Nationalized healthcare would be beyond catastrophic. We would see a sharp decline in quality and expediency of care. The reason that our system is so good as far as quality is because it is financed appropriately. All that would happen with social medicine is we would receive two-tiered care. There would be cruddy care for all quality care for those who can afford it. Having a system of public care and a system of private care makes no sense whatsoever.

Also some food for thought for you:
A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.
~Gerald Ford -- Presidential address to a joint session of Congress (12 August 1974)

ehhh I wrote that up bad, didnt mean for the others to be assume health care cost free. hehe that was a really bad way of putting it.

no matter what, privatized insurance or government run insurance, we should be able to agree the absolute minimim we will have to pay is the average health care cost per person($of healthcare for the group/number of people in the group). Anything above that is going to cover opperating costs and profit seen by the insurer.

So there are 2 ways to lower our insurance costs: lower our medical costs, or lower the opperating costs and profits of the providors. Lowering medical costs our ouside of the scope of what were talking about. Consolidation is good way to lower the opperating costs and profits of providors.

Now take a look at what an insurer does: in its simplest form, they only collect and distribute money. Our governemnt already has a fairly efficient means of collecting money, taxes. Adding heath care to taxes would be as simple as adding a few lines to the forms. The distribution of money would require a new system to be setup, which would be expensive. The goverment should be able to run healthcare on 0% profit, public pays for health care and the opperational cost, the government just distributes the money....compare that to private insurance that is in business solely to make money. Now the one thing better about privatized companies compared to government run, private companies strive to lower opperation costs to turn more of a profit....our government forgets this step, thats why its a giant pig.

I'm not sure of the effect on heathcare, I dont see why there would be a dramatic decline when health care providors would still be paid the same amount, the source should be the only thing that is changing. IMO, from my fathers experience with the healthcare system, I dont think its that great to begin with.


/

[michbich]

Yeah, except each of the other 99 or 999 has medical bills too. It is not going to save money overall. If everyone paid for everyone else, the same amount would get paid in the end. There is no free lunch. For most people it would actually be more expensive. Plus you fail to account for extra administrative costs associated with a government operation.

Nationalized healthcare would be beyond catastrophic. We would see a sharp decline in quality and expediency of care. The reason that our system is so good as far as quality is because it is financed appropriately. All that would happen with social medicine is we would receive two-tiered care. There would be cruddy care for all quality care for those who can afford it. Having a system of public care and a system of private care makes no sense whatsoever.

Also some food for thought for you:
A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.
~Gerald Ford -- Presidential address to a joint session of Congress (12 August 1974)

[grEnAlEins]

Our education system is in a catastrophic state for the most part. The quality of a public education here no longer exists to the degree that it once did. We have fallen behind compared to other countries as far as student performance, at least in our public system.
If you have a public and private system, then you do have a two-tiered system. Sorry, but you do.

[grEnAlEins]

ehhh I wrote that up bad, didnt mean for the others to be assume health care cost free. hehe that was a really bad way of putting it.

no matter what, privatized insurance or government run insurance, we should be able to agree the absolute minimim we will have to pay is the average health care cost per person($of healthcare for the group/number of people in the group). Anything above that is going to cover opperating costs and profit seen by the insurer.

So there are 2 ways to lower our insurance costs: lower our medical costs, or lower the opperating costs and profits of the providors. Lowering medical costs our ouside of the scope of what were talking about. Consolidation is good way to lower the opperating costs and profits of providors.

Now take a look at what an insurer does: in its simplest form, they only collect and distribute money. Our governemnt already has a fairly efficient means of collecting money, taxes. Adding heath care to taxes would be as simple as adding a few lines to the forms. The distribution of money would require a new system to be setup, which would be expensive. The goverment should be able to run healthcare on 0% profit, public pays for health care and the opperational cost, the government just distributes the money....compare that to private insurance that is in business solely to make money. Now the one thing better about privatized companies compared to government run, private companies strive to lower opperation costs to turn more of a profit....our government forgets this step, thats why its a giant pig.

I'm not sure of the effect on heathcare, I dont see why there would be a dramatic decline when health care providors would still be paid the same amount, the source should be the only thing that is changing. IMO, from my fathers experience with the healthcare system, I dont think its that great to begin with.


/

My point is this: If I spend $800-1200 a year for my check up, how is a good deal for me to be taxed $3K for my medical care? It is not cheaper for most people because you are averaging costs and you have outliers at the high end. It is only cheaper for those that incur a higher than average expense. It will always be more expensive for over half of the individuals because most of your outliers are at the high end cost wise.

Our system is as great as you can afford or as your insurance will cover and it depends on hospitals/doctors in your area...

I'd rather be billed for only my own expenses.

Here is another thing to look at:
Look at the outright terrible care that the VA tends to provide in comparison to other hospitals (I would know because of my late grandfather's treatment at VA vs. private hospitals). You want the same organization that provides that care to provide all care why?

[michbich]

Our education system is in a catastrophic state for the most part.
If you have a public and private system, then you do have a two-tiered system. Sorry, but you do.

I don't care what you say about it, it works the way it is. Have you ever lived outside of the US? If not, you have no personnal experience to back your social heathcare statements.

About the private and public healthcare in the same province. If the people have enough money to pay for a private health care, they have enough money to pay their normal taxes and help the less fortunate out.

What makes rich people the right to better healthcare then others? No one is more important than the other. Everyone is replaceable...everyone. (sad, but true)

[grEnAlEins]

I don't care what you say about it, it works the way it is. Have you ever lived outside of the US? If not, you have no personnal experience to back your social heathcare statements.

About the private and public healthcare in the same province. If the people have enough money to pay for a private health care, they have enough money to pay their normal taxes and help the less fortunate out.

What makes rich people the right to better healthcare then others? No one is more important than the other. Everyone is replaceable...everyone. (sad, but true)

You cannot tell me that the level of care is exactly the same though. If it was, you would not have a private system. Obviously people are using it for a reason.

What you are telling me is the I can pay $3K for either:

• a doctor with 300 other patients on his mind, a longer wait to see him, and a warm fuzzy feeling that I am a good person

or

• a doctor who is focused on my ailment, can see me quickly, and can provide the highest level of care possible

Which would I choose?


And Canada does not have the problem of illegal aliens like we do. These are people that receive expensive treatment but do not pay taxes or bills. This is the reason our standard of care is lower or cost of care is higher (depending on how you want to phrase it).

You also do not have the issue with medical malpractice lawsuits and liability insurance costs skyrocketing.

I do not doubt that it works for you. I firmly believe that it does. Might it work here? It could. I am just saying that it is not an appealing option in my eyes.

[Lohman446]

I agree that a pay system works.

HOWEVER - both insurance and medical costs need to be reeled into the realm of reasonable if the system is going to continue. At this point you do pay more than your share when you pay at a hospital because you are paying for yours plus the untold bills a hospital cannot collect, as well as liability concerns.

We have to fix the system, this does not necessarily mean a system entirely government controlled.

[grEnAlEins]

I agree that a pay system works.

HOWEVER - both insurance and medical costs need to be reeled into the realm of reasonable if the system is going to continue. At this point you do pay more than your share when you pay at a hospital because you are paying for yours plus the untold bills a hospital cannot collect, as well as liability concerns.

We have to fix the system, this does not necessarily mean a system entirely government controlled.

LOL, I just made an edit similar to what you are saying here about a particular group of chronic non-payers.

[Avianrave]

Singapore has their health care system right.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/01/singapores_heal.html